Tribunal dismisses appeals due to lengthy delays and inadequate explanations

The Tribunal declined to condone delays of 376 days and 499 days in filing appeals due to misplaced order and negligence of the appellant. The appeals were dismissed as the explanations provided for the delays were deemed unsatisfactory and lacking clarity. The Tribunal found the appellant's reasons unconvincing, highlighting discrepancies in filing appeals against the same order by the company and the Managing Director. Consequently, the condonation of delay applications were rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeals in the final judgment.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeals due to misplaced order and negligence of appellant.

Analysis:
The applicant sought condonation of delay of 376 days and 499 days in filing appeals, citing that the order was served to security personnel who misplaced it, leading to non-filing within the stipulated time frame. The applicant engaged a consultant for handling Central Excise matters, who failed to inform about the rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner(Appeals). The delay was discovered only upon receiving a notice of property attachment. The applicant prayed for condonation of delay and decision on merits.

The learned AR contended that the reasons provided for delay were unsatisfactory. The applicant admitted in the affidavit that the order was served to security personnel who misplaced it, but failed to explain how they eventually retrieved the order. The AR argued that the explanations in the affidavit lacked clarity on the recovery of the misplaced order.

Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal found the applicant's explanation for the significant delays unconvincing. Notably, two appeals were filed against the same order, one by the company and the other by the Managing Director, with varying delays of 376 days and 499 days respectively. This discrepancy indicated negligence on the part of the appellant in pursuing their cases. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided were not persuasive, leading to the rejection of the condonation of delay applications and subsequent dismissal of the appeals.

In the final judgment pronounced on 03/09/2018, the Tribunal declined to condone the delays of 376 days and 499 days in filing the appeals, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeals themselves.

---